About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 22
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
and that there had been al qaeda influence to individuals from other countries that had come in. and that it was premeditated and planned. and i just don't understand why the administration would have susan rice go on television and say that the views essentially of the president of libya just didn't matter. she completely discounted them. that doesn't make sense to me. >> you suggested she was behaving politically. fair enough, if that's the case. what would be the political purpose in denying the role of terrorism in this act, the central role of terrorism, organized terrorism, in the death of ambassador stevens? what would be her purpose politically in that? >> i believe that the administration wanted to portray libya as an unqualified success story. and ambassador rice was one of the chief advocates of our involvement in libya, so arguably had a personal stake in that as -- contrary of the administration to say libya was awash with weapons, that there was a growing al qaeda presence, that there were training camps for islamic extremists, particularly near benghazi. and that
to the salafists and al qaeda, yeah. they are a muslim brotherhood government which is why morsi had the leverage to negotiate the cease-fire. >> mika, a lot of interesting things, talking about foreign policy going on here at home, talking about who the next secretary of state may be, john mccain said, along with lindsey graham and several others, who said they were going to fight susan rice tooth and nail, that sort of changed over the weekend, didn't it? >> that appears to be changing just a tad bit. heilmann, you wrote about it. senator mccain is softening his attacks on u.n. ambassador susan rice after vowing to block her potential nomination as secretary of state. republicans claim ambassador rice deliberately misled the country in the aftermath of the september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. but rice says that she's not to blame, arguing she relied on the talking points from the intelligence community. although mccain had threatened a senate filibuster earlier this month, he's now open to meeting directly with miss rice. >> is there anything that ambassador rice can do to c
denied al qaeda's lead role in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that cost the lives of ambassador chris stevens and three others and she did so knowing it was true. well, the man who defeated mccain in the 2008 presidential campaign takes this as a personal shot at him. how will he respond? will he name ambassador rice his new secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? will he meet mccain's challenge head on and send rice up to the capitol to go face-to-face with the enemy? tonight we study the battlefield and the firepower of the two sides in this year-ending fire fight. mccain sure wants this fight, but do his fellow republicans? do they want an older white guy taking on the competence of a young woman of color, a rhodes scholar of solid reputation? most important, what end does the president want for this match of fact and wits? i'm joined by michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution and jonathan landay. the intelligence reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. michael, thank you for this. i want to get to the facts. am i right, is the main charge here coming fr
to al qaeda that individuals with ties to al qaeda were involved. and then yet, went on the sunday show and left a very different impression. let's not forget that on those sunday shows on "meet the press" as well as "face the nation" she also made the statement that al qaeda was decimated. and so it left a misleading impression to the american people. i was also troubled that they knew by the 21st the acting director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
't involved in removing the information on al qaeda. he said the intelligence community made the changes. in responding to this report, mccain admitted that he was wrong, but still took a shot at the white house. he said intelligence officials, quote, told us they did not know who made the changes. now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so suspicious of actions of this administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. meanwhile, his sidekick, lindsey graham, is going into full attack mode. senator graham wrote a letter to president obama on tuesday, saying that he's concerned. many questions remain unanswered on the benghazi attacks. he says the president has a duty to the american people to answer the basic questions surrounding the benghazi attack. so far, all of the right-wing conspiracy theories about the benghazi attack have been completely wrong. it's about time they dropped all of this nonsense and just went back to doing their jobs. let's bring in democratic consultant, tara doudel, and also with
that this was an yak. the intelligence community opted to leave specific reference to al qaeda and terrorism out of her presentation because they didn't want al qaeda to know that we knew what we knew. this is classic investigative philosophy. don't let the suspects know you suspect them. it's clear to me there was no mendacity by susan rice, no incompetence, there was no cover-up by the white house. to continue to argue there was any of that is now tin foil hat stuff. there is also now no will to filibuster to block rice. this is perhaps why john mccain has softened his tone. >> but you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said, but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states. >> that's an end, i hope, to the vicious and baseless character attack that has made rice the center of a witch hunt by the right even though she has done nothing to disqualify herself. mccain tried to make her unnominatable but made it so obama will look weak
-term since the leadership of the hamas believes, like osama bin laden and al qaeda in death and destruction and their charter is to destroy israel. it's difficult to broker a deal with somebody that wants to kill you and they're not changing their charter. the challenge here is how do we make sure the hamas leadership understands that their motivation should be zero, very negative motivation to try and shoot indiscriminate fire on israeli civilians. >> so how far are you prepared to go? if you're saying a cease-fire can't be agreed on if their motivation is anything but zero, how far are you prepared to go and are you prepared for the repercussions based on those actions? >> the idea is, unlike hamas who are trying to kill civilians, we are focused on targeting the leadership. i hope and believe the residents, citizens of gaza will go back to their leaders and say do us a favor, stop shooting israel. we are need to broker maybe a deal, have some quiet. israel is interested in this. i'm sure most residents in gaza are interested. leaders of hamas have to make sure they're not violent against
that went to the daily briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. the others gave a different impression, if not contradicting that. like it was a protest. the person who delivered the talking points was susan rice. she said something that i think republicans believe she knew wasn't true. she said it, she must from known it wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic for two reasons. why would she know it wasn't true. >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right. but the point is intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of information that are intentional or can both be true, both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, which seemed like what was the case. so, if you were given one set of talking points that were classified i don't see why -- do you go back to the cia and say you are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here and you want to obscure the fact we know who the terrorists were -- >> this is petraeus' argument at the closed
briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. and then the up classified talking points gave a very different impression. the person who delivered those talking points was susan rice. she said something republicans believe wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic. why would she know it wasn't true? and second of all -- >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right, but the point is, intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of intelligence can be both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, and so if you were given one set of talking points that are classified and then a litter iteration that are unclassified, do you go back to the cia and say you guys are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here, and there are reasons why you would want to obscure the fact that we would know who the terrorists were, if there was -- >> which is petraeus' argument. >> i don't necessarily buy that either. but the point being at the time, the intelligence comm
and al qaeda were taken out for a couple of reasons. one, the intelligence was evolving and they didn't want to tip them off. we need to let this go. the fiscal cliff and jobs are far more important. >> and let's talk about the fiscal cliff and jobs. in your time in california you worked on in the state assembly, a state hit hard by a fiscal y crisis. >> i sure did. >> i want to talk to you about something you said in terms of medicare reform and medicaid. obviously republicans are saying, look, in exchange for any type of taxes going up, we want to see some real entitlement reform. you talk about cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse. is there enough revenue from waste, fraud and abuse and m medicare to get the type of serious deficit reform needed to bring down the $16 trillion debt? >> well, you know, i think anytime you're talking about a deficit, there's two ways to bring it down, and i know you know this well. you're either going to raise revenue or have cuts, and i would continue to argue for a balanced approach which means i do think you can find savings in both programs.
that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to distinguish more effectively between an al qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians. >> that is the defense of the obama administration today. in essence that this program is so targeted it saves civilian lives. what do you say to that in your case? >> well, i think it's very hard to assess that kind of claim without more information. information that the administration refuses to release. it's very easy for administration officials to make claims like this when there's no possibility that they're going to be held to account for the claims, no possibility that some court is going to order them to disclose information, no possibility that they'll be sksd foll -- asked follow-up questions. part of the reason we are in court asking judges to enforce the freedom of information act, asking judges to disclose more information is to allow the public to better assess the kinds of claims that the administration is now making, usually through unnamed officials in leaks to favored media. >> jodi, do you think this is the area where we've seen pe
not to say because we didn't want al qaeda to know we knew it at that point. the real question is why is mccain making this attack and wasting whatever political capital and reputation he has left? >> reporter: well, some people are wondering does mccain want to simply stay in the spotlight? mccain is known for foreign policy. he's known for going on sunday shows. the benghazi issue gets him back in the spotlight. everyone is talking about john mccain again. so some people wonder if there's a little bit of political opportunism there. >> i want to go back to something krystal said a minute ago. closing ranks behind susan rice because much political battle lines in this. you made the point earlier if you just looked at this without regard to benghazi and said john mccain realistically speaking, who potentially could appoint secretary of state that would agree ideological with you. realistically susan rice is as good as he can do. the consensus in the democratic party is probably to the right of it. i wonder is there any push-back from the left or from democrats in washington toward the admin
in may 2003 that we found the wmds in iraq. dick cheney and condoleezza rice talked about links to al qaeda in iraq. you've never made up for those huge, serious, significant lies in the arena of foreign policy. and now you're picking apart, you know, basically the very early and ultimately not misleading with regard to foreign policy decisions, statements that this diplomat made. >> one thing we're learning right now the meeting with ambassador rice and senator corker is happening as we speak so a little earlier than that noontime appointment. but the one thing we heard also from senator barrasso in the last hour was john considerry's name floated out and it would be easier for him to sail through. you had the opportunity to work with john kerry before. >> sure. >> when we hear about this, is that really what the game, as joy-ann said, this machiavellian game, basically let's get kerry in this position and then scott brown could take over his seat, run for that seat in massachusetts, we get scott brownbach in? >> this is a little delicate because i know so many people involved. this
yesterday against al qaeda terrorists. [ man thinking ] oh, this gas. those antacids aren't working. oh no, not that, not here! [ male announcer ] antacids don't relieve gas. gas-x is designed to relieve gas. gas-x. the gas xperts. we create easy to use, powerful trading tools for all. look at these streaming charts! they're totally customizable and they let you visualize what might happen next. that's genius! strategies, chains, positions. we put 'em all on one screen! could we make placing a trade any easier? mmmm...could we? open an account today and get a free 13-month e ibd™ subscription when you call 1-888-280-0157 now. optionsxpress by charles schwab. [ male announcer ] introducing a brand new medicare prescription drug plan. it's called the aarp medicarerx saver plus plan from unitedhealthcare. and it's for people who want the lowest part d premium in the united states... only $15 a month. and copays could be as low as a dollar. so call unitedhealthcare now to enroll or learn more. with this plan, you can save 40% or more on your copays by using a preferred network pharmacy, in a
went on and basically defied what the president of libya said when he said al qaeda was involved. she said no. she continued to go back to this story that had to do with a spontaneous demonstration and about a bad video. and the bottom line is for secretary of state, you want somebody who actually can think about these issues, makes reasoned decisions, and asks tough questions. and i think she has failed that. and to me she has disqualified herself for secretary of state. >> here's what some democrats had to say about the rice nomination. let me play this for you, senator. >> i think it wouldn't be fair to disqualify her based on what she said on those sunday morning shows. >> i find it mind-boggling that some of the gop senators continue to go after her. it's completely unjustified. and i can only conclude that having failed to deny the president a second term they now want to deny him the cabinet of his choice. >> congressman schiff isn't the only one suggesting that opponents are playing politics with this. in addition to that, look, you've been on sunday talk show, you know how th
of the rewriting of those talking points was done by the fbi to take out al qaeda references, not by the zewe we had been told by the director of national intelligence came from the intelligence committee. it's worse than when she went up. she'll see bob corker, known to be bipartisan from tennessee and i don't think it'll be quite as vitriolic as yesterday. she felt she wanted to clear her name and she had been maligned and just been on morning television. that the real issue as jay carney was trying to say what happened before, what happened during but not what happened on sunday morning television programs and there is an investigation that hillary clinton has commissioned. it is a legally mandated investigation being led by none other than the former chairman, joint chief, mike ullin and co-chaired from mike pickering and deputy secretary of state. it's going to be coming out in mid-december and reported to congress and i understand it's going to be very tough on the state department for not ramping up security which many people believe could be the real issue here, not what was said on sund
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)